Congress was quite clear when it confirmed the two justices who swing the balance of the Supreme Court that it did not warrant them to legislate from the bench, and this week, by a 5-4 decision, the court passed up an opportunity to do so.

Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at a Goodyear plant in Alabama and after 19 years with the company she was making $45,000 a year, $6,600 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor. Shortly before retiring, she sued under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging sex discrimination.

She was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages at the trial level, later reduced to $360,000, but the appeals court overturned the verdict. It's reasoning: The law requires that a discrimination lawsuit be filed within 180 days after the alleged illegal employment practice took place.

And Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, agreed, saying the court was applying the statute "as written." And he's right. That's what the law says. He rather clouded that point by writing, "This short deadline reflects Congress' strong preference for the prompt resolution of employment discrimination through voluntary conciliation and cooperation," thus showing a certain naiveté about the clout of a lone worker, especially a female, in a large factory.

The majority dealt with the letter of the law, not what is fair or just. That was left to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four dissenters:

"In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination."

She noted the difficulty of proving discrimination in such a tight time frame, especially given the secrecy in many workplaces about pay and promotion practices. Meanwhile, Ms. Ledbetter continues to pay the price for that discrimination in a diminished pension. This is a clear invitation for Congress to act, to reaffirm that the law "as written" is what it truly intends or to give workers like Ms. Ledbetter a more equitable shot at compensation.

The lawmakers have acted before to rectify inequities in the civil rights laws spotlighted by the justices. Justice Ginsburg concluded, "Once again, the ball is in Congress' court."